Birdguy found one of my pet peeves with EA in v5.
It might not be so evident if you exclusively fly airliners. But for GA the tendency to create a milky tone to the sky during daytime at lower altitudes is a rather bland experience.

This is P3D v5 at ESSD. 

This is taken from flight from last year.

At times TruSky brings added layer of realism, but it also drags down immersion when things just don't look like it should. I turn it off for some flights just b/c of this.

"Thepilot"'s image looked very nice though.

LM still hasn't figured the Rayleigh scattering settings in EA yet and with EA on, visibility is unrealistic.

8 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

LM still hasn't figured the Rayleigh scattering settings in EA yet and with EA on, visibility is unrealistic.

That is only without a weather program....

ASP3D controls the visibility very well. To achieve this took them several extra months. Therefore ASP3D was not ready when P3Dv5 was released.

I have moments I can see for almost 80-90 mls at low altitude and another time way less, depending on real weather...

Without EA there is less Raleigh scattering than in reality. Luckily this can be changed using EnvShade.

Edited March 13, 20215 yr by GSalden

I would have thought that the developer of TrueSky would have worked out how to render haze correctly by now. Maybe it is a lot more complicated than I think?

Edited March 13, 20215 yr by Christopher Low

14 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I would have thought that the developer of TrueSky would have worked out how to render haze correctly by now. Maybe it is a lot more complicated than I think?

Like I wrote : with ASP3D it looks good. 

Simul has a lot of tweaks but LM, at this moment, has only implemented a few of them. This will change with upcoming versions.

I would also say that Enhanced Atmospherics haze is more accurate. This is another reason I love Enhanced Atmospherics - without Enhanced Atmospherics haze / aerial perspective is simply inaccurate.

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I would have thought that the developer of TrueSky would have worked out how to render haze correctly by now. Maybe it is a lot more complicated than I think?

TrueSky can shine. Just look at this Unreal4 demo with TrueSky

It's just that LM handed us a halfbaked version of TS and relies on HiFi-sim to make it look good, I guess. More than 10 months since v5 was released....

Edited March 13, 20215 yr by SAS443

41 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

TrueSky can shine. Just look at this Unreal4 demo with TrueSky

It's just that LM handed us a halfbaked version of TS and relies on HiFi-sim to make it look good, I guess. More than 10 months since v5 was released....

And that's the crux of the problem, right here. For some reason, LM chose to go with a technology designed for FPS games, not for flight sims. Yes, the TS clouds can look spectacular from the ground, but they are not meant to be viewed from above, and this is why there are so many issues with grids, etc. They don't follow the curvature of the Earth, either...

"Half-baked" is another keyword here, and a bit of an euphemism, really... They simply slapped on a third-party technology with the hope that it might work...Well, it doesn't, not without proper customization. And the glowing objects at night, awfully pixelated clouds at sunrise/sunset, the Martian red dawns/dusks and a plethora of other visual glitches clearly show that the customization is badly needed. One would expect that it would've been addressed almost a year from release, but apparently that's not a priority.

/rant off

Edited March 13, 20215 yr by tymk

3 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I would also say that Enhanced Atmospherics haze is more accurate. This is another reason I love Enhanced Atmospherics - without Enhanced Atmospherics haze / aerial perspective is simply inaccurate.

Has it been improved to some extent since the initial release of v5? Based on screenshots that I have seen on this forum from the release version, the level of haze was nowhere near accurate.

Edited March 13, 20215 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, tymk said:

And that's the crux of the problem, right here. For some reason, LM chose to go with a technology designed for FPS games, not for flight sims. Yes, the TS clouds can look spectacular from the ground, but they are not meant to be viewed from above, and this is why there are so many issues with grids, etc. They don't follow the curvature of the Earth, either...

"Half-baked" is another keyword here, and a bit of an euphemism, really... They simply slapped on a third-party technology with the hope that it might work...Well, it doesn't, not without proper customization. And the glowing objects at night, awfully pixelated clouds at sunrise/sunset, the Martian red dawns/dusks and a plethora of other visual glitches clearly show that the customization is badly needed. One would expect that it would've been addressed almost a year from release, but apparently that's not a priority.

/rant off

I imagine that LM looked at the MSFS early videos and the weather capabilities it was promising and thought 'we have to have volumetric clouds and weather' (though I imagine it was already on their roadmap) but realised it would take a huge amount of time to develop this themselves and looked for something off the shelf. They've used that approach multiple times before (speed trees, water effects etc) and it's their go-to model. But the rush to get a v5 out of the door to benefit from DX12 performance improvements in the same kind of timescale as the MSFS release meant that it's ended up half-baked. 

Asobo also used technology designed for gaming - the rendering engine is derived from the engine used for Forza. It also is a 'on the ground looking up' deal. But MS just did a better job with the weather depiction (within reason). But they had been working on the core engine for years before they ever announced MSFS. If LM had had that much time I daresay EA would be up to MSFS standards. 

Is there even a viable choice other than TrueSky or DIY? 

3 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

without Enhanced Atmospherics haze / aerial perspective is simply inaccurate.

Inaccurate where you live or fly.  Unchecking EA gets rid of the haze which is normal for where I live.  Besides unchecking EA allows the cirrus layers to show up.  With EA checked the cirrus layer disappears.  

I can check EA when I am flying in coastal areas and lowland areas with higher humidity.  Then uncheck it when I get into the deserts and high altitude areas where there is no noticeable haze.

Noel

11 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Inaccurate where you live or fly.  Unchecking EA gets rid of the haze which is normal for where I live.  Besides unchecking EA allows the cirrus layers to show up.  With EA checked the cirrus layer disappears.  

I can check EA when I am flying in coastal areas and lowland areas with higher humidity.  Then uncheck it when I get into the deserts and high altitude areas where there is no noticeable haze.

Noel

This would explain it - here it's always hazy so that I'm used to seeing a thick blue haze, which makes non-EA inaccurate for me. I wish there was a way to replicate all scenarios.

Edited March 13, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Has it been improved to some extent since the initial release of v5? Based on screenshots that I have seen on this forum from the release version, the level of haze was nowhere near accurate.

I guess it indeed depends on the region, because here I'm used to seeing a thick blue haze. P3D's haze is a bit too dark blue, though - which is something I change using ReShade.

4 hours ago, SAS443 said:

TrueSky can shine. Just look at this Unreal4 demo with TrueSky

It's just that LM handed us a halfbaked version of TS and relies on HiFi-sim to make it look good, I guess. More than 10 months since v5 was released....

I wouldn't call it half-baked. It's true that P3D implementation of trueSKY still needs improvement, however these videos are misleading - in most games camera will always be on the ground, which means cloud details (noise frequency and amount of transmittance & lighting samples) can be significantly increased without introducing repetition or reducing performance. Also these games use pre-made coverage maps, which is again not possible with a flight simulator. I still think the potential is there and hope that LM will improve it even further.

I guess I am easily attracted to shiny objects.  Now that I know about EA and that I can turn it off went I don't want haze and turn it back on when I want it I think it's a great sim when coupled with Orbx scenery.

Noel